우수제품 지정기간 연장신청 거부 처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff, a company that manufactures and sells asphalt concrete (hereinafter referred to as “ice concrete”), obtained a patent for eco-friendly low-noises (hereinafter referred to as “instant products”) around December 2008, and obtained performance certification from the Small and Medium Business Administration around February 2010.
On March 14, 2012, pursuant to Article 9-2 of the former Procurement Act (amended by Act No. 13817, Jan. 27, 2016) and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25680, Nov. 4, 2014), the Defendant designated the instant product as exemplary procurement commodities (hereinafter referred to as “excellent products”) by setting the period of designation from March 14 to March 13, 2012, and designating it as exemplary procurement commodities.
Since then, the defendant extended the designation period on two occasions, the designation period of outstanding products for the product of this case is until March 13, 2017.
On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply the instant product by means of a negotiated contract pursuant to Article 7 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter “State Contract Act”).
Contract method: Negotiated contract period: From May 16, 2012 to May 15, 2013, contract classification: The Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of the instant product with the Plaintiff on September 18, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”) and included “to the extent that it is possible to supply the instant product to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s factory in Busan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Gyeongnam, and Jeonnam area”
(hereinafter “regional restriction clause”). Afterwards, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the contract term of the instant contract to May 7, 2015 by May 13, 2016.
The Plaintiff registered the instant product in the national integrated shopping mall operated by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Nater integrated shopping mall”), but is not included in the regional restriction clause even after the instant contract was concluded.